Homebrewed Nikon D90 lens is a fish-eyed theft deterrent

It may look like just a bit of corkwood taped to the front of a pretty expensive shooter, but that's only because it is. If you're already willing to withstand gadget muggles sniggering at your mighty DSLR and its six inch frontal protrusion, surely adding this sort of a ghetto mod isn't going to dent your self-respect too much. Put together using the ultimate in ordinary household objects, this fish-eye lens manages to kick out some pretty useful-looking images and seems a viable alternative for those with more time than money. Check out the read link for the full instructions and a gallery of photos taken with the lens.

[wack @ Jul 10th 2009 7:47AM]

I suppose if you want to go for that "Truman Show Look" with your pictures...

[OneLove @ Jul 10th 2009 9:56AM]

He ran out of money after buying the camera. (need lenses, damn it)

[willyolio @ Jul 10th 2009 5:04PM]

why, yes, that IS the point of a fish-eye lens. were you trying to make a point?

[James Dumoulin @ Jul 10th 2009 8:28AM]

THE CHROMATIC ABBERATIONS THEY BURRRRRRRN!!!

[b3tan @ Jul 10th 2009 8:29AM]

That's the worst contraption I've ever seen. How has this made it on to one of the best gadget blogs?
What's the point in having a camera like that if you're going to reduce the quality of the shot by using a 'lens' like that?

[KC @ Jul 10th 2009 3:54PM]

The quality might be poor, but that guy has the right idea. I mean, most of us have spare kit lenses that we don't use, why not put those to use and have some fun?

[zoom30 @ Jul 10th 2009 8:32AM]

The images this rig produces are junk. You get what you pay for. This is $16 lens that isn't worth a dollar. Don't waist your time.

[Justin @ Jul 10th 2009 9:02AM]

$1200 camera with a $16 lense??? WTF...seriously? This reminds me of when Reter (family guy) cut a cardboard box to make a "tv"

[swimtedswim @ Jul 10th 2009 9:40AM]

Reter??? Peter

Did you use this guy's lens to read the post???

[Jamie M @ Jul 10th 2009 8:49AM]

Also available: Photoshop

[Dave @ Jul 10th 2009 8:59AM]

Does Photoshop not take the whole purpose of fish eye away? The point is to get a super wide angle, that's why it's used in doors and some CCTV. It's pointless to put that effect on a normal shot.

[James Scott @ Jul 10th 2009 9:15AM]

No photoshop wouldn't take anything away, it would be the opposite!. Even the kit lens will have a larger field of vision than this pile and would result in a superior fish eye picture after photoshop. Remember Fisheyes are for extreme Field of vision and this little one in a configuration on a regular camera lens would actually be quite limited.

You want to do it for as little monies as possible? Try the GIMP.

This instructable is an epic waste of time and effort since it turns a regular camera into a sub megapixel camera with a bad lens.

[SHopkins @ Jul 10th 2009 9:16AM]

What the modder here has accomplished is no better than what Photoshop could achieve with the same shot sans peep-hole. Notice in the read link how little of the actual frame is covered by the actual peep-hole? This means you're effectively cropping a ton and THEN applying a fisheye effect. You're likely not getting ANY decrease in focal length, and you're wasting a TON of your sensor data... all for an effect that could be better achieved completely free in software. There are also tons of cheap screw-on fisheye adapters on ebay that would do infinitely better than this approach if you didn't want to pony up for a true fisheye lens. The peep-hole fisheye can be fun and semi-useful on point & shoots with smaller optics/sensors, but throwing away 90% of your sensor data on a dSLR when you could do better in software is a waste of scrap wood and duct tape.

[Kurian @ Jul 10th 2009 12:48PM]

After looking at the photo gallery, its apparent that the stock lens takes wider images than this.

[jimmy @ Jul 10th 2009 1:29PM]

unfortunately, Photoshop, Gimp, and other photo-altering programs have taken the skill and ingenuity out of photography. Any d-bag with a $200 Elph can shoot a load of crap in the field, then sit behind a desk for hours and fix white balance, chroma, depth of field, change to black&white, and add fisheye and panorama effects. Try learning how to SHOOT pictures instead of how to FIX pictures.

I salute this mod! It's time we go back to being creative, instead of just "fixing it in post"

[ehisforadam @ Jul 10th 2009 8:55AM]

It's kinda cool, much cheaper than an actual fish eye lens, but I wouldn't sacrifice a lens hood for it. Always use your lens hoods kids, there may not be any cross light, but they certainly can protect against people bumping into you.

[Zach @ Jul 10th 2009 8:58AM]

I absolutely guarantee that not only will your images be dull as crap, as the glass is just standard glass and not optical or coated glass, but that you'll have some of the worst chromatic aberration you've ever imagined. Why would you buy a D90 and put this (Quite obviosuly a door's peephole) on the end of it? Do you realize that you bought a D90? Why didn't you just do this with your Cybershot?

Stay away from my D300, you fool.

[tcc3 @ Jul 10th 2009 9:01AM]

He didn't take any upclose pictures of animals...with funny hats.

[Ian @ Jul 10th 2009 9:53AM]

Besides the obvious optical issues, for chrissakes get some black gaffer's tape!

[Rebajas @ Jul 10th 2009 9:59AM]

Sorry - but why the Nikon? Would have been far more impressive if he'd just attached the 'lens' to a mobile phone camera.

Hmm... might just do that as it goes.

[shibbee_me @ Jul 10th 2009 10:09AM]

Is this all it takes to make it on an Engadget post??

Now...what can I duct tape to what and call it ingenious?

[Dan @ Jul 10th 2009 10:18AM]

Aw Engadget, you publish such cool stuff that is actually useful or funny. This is just pathetic. I can't believe that Instructables (normally an excellent place to find cool DIY stuff) would even allow this to be published. No say it ain't so Joe.

All this thing does is make your picture round and adds a ton of barrel distortion. It does not increase the field of view. A true fish eye lens has at least 180 degree angle of view - some actually see a little bit behind themselves. No way does this piece 'o junk see 180 degrees. In fact there are fish eye lenses that do not make that circle image.

Like others have said, it's simple to apply this effect to any picture using photoshop. And you don't have to put a piece of junk glass on the front of your lens.

Aw I'm so disappointed in this post.

[Shenanigans @ Jul 10th 2009 10:29AM]

That adapter would make an awesome series- unusual things seen through a peep hole.

Who cares about chromatic abrasions all that. It adds to the photo. Step out the box, put down your HDR and try something new. Go buy a Diana or a Holga. My Diana is still my favorite camera.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c353/bryphotoguy/front.jpg
 
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c353/bryphotoguy/rocket.jpg
 

[jtupeck @ Jul 10th 2009 11:28AM]

For something like this, yes. A stylized/themed set of pics, sure. But its definitely not a fisheye lens.

[jtupeck @ Jul 10th 2009 11:27AM]

This is NOT a fisheye by any stretch of the imagination.

[Shenanigans @ Jul 10th 2009 11:41AM]

That's why I called it an adapter and not a fisheye lens.

Now use a body cap and mount the peep hole thing to it, yes, it would be a fisheye lens.

[JB @ Jul 10th 2009 11:40AM]

The title of this post is inaccurate. There is no such thing as a D90 lens. The title should read "Homebrewed lens on a Nikon D90 is a fish-eyed theft deterrent".

[TIMMAH! @ Jul 10th 2009 11:41AM]

You'd think he could have spent the $5 on a extra lens cap and used that to attach it to his lens instead of having all the gunky duct tape.

[00shitz @ Jul 10th 2009 11:46AM]

duct tape on new camera = idiot

[Vylen @ Jul 10th 2009 12:27PM]

did... did you even read the article?

he duct taped it onto a lens hood.... you do know what those are right?

[Kenjis9965 @ Jul 10th 2009 6:13PM]

Yeah, He wasted a perfectly good lens hood that is likely a $30-50 part and is infinitely more useful and better to have than this gimmicky thing...

He coulda ponied up $20-40 on one of those cheapo fisheye screw in lenses, They at least produce a decent image, not as good as a dedicated fisheye, but they're a lot better than this

[mason @ Jul 10th 2009 11:48AM]

You can't afford a real fish eye lens, but you can afford a $1000 plus camera?

[J. Baker @ Jul 10th 2009 12:55PM]

Just because someone has 1k to spend on something doesn't mean they have another 1k ready to go to buy something else.

By that logic, if you've already spent 2k, you must have another 2k to spend. Right?

RE-TARD-ED

[boredtoday @ Jul 10th 2009 1:20PM]

where are the pictures?????

[iKurt 7 @ Jul 10th 2009 2:00PM]

Typical Nikon fanboi stupidity.

[Tazintosh @ Jul 10th 2009 2:17PM]

When I see those ugly results, I'm pretty sure it should be best to take multiple shots and compose them with a great "pano" software.

[mini.mac.albertu @ Jul 10th 2009 3:25PM]

Instructable

[highjumpman @ Jul 10th 2009 7:18PM]

Nice idea, but needs improvement...
Of all camera themed DIYs, this one's my fave: http://photocritic.org/macro-photography-on-a-budget/
Don't know if it made it on Engadget though...

[Xepol @ Jul 10th 2009 7:50PM]

Sure, but does it have blue LEDs and a USB hub?